if you’re reporting on a scientific study,
cheap jordan shoes
, you need to actually look at the paper. You need to talk to a source who has real scientific expertise,
cheap jordans online
,” Bohannon told?the Washington Post.
This point that journalists should take care when covering health and statistics has been made over and over again. This was not an instance of last resort that required undercover tactics. There are numerous resources for journalists to help them interpret statistics: At its annual meeting, the National Association of Science Writers,
http://cheapjordansstock.com
, for example,
cheap real jordans
, has hosted many sessions dedicated to this topic. (Speakers?at last year’s session included Science News managing editor Tom Siegfried, who has written?extensively on this topic,
cheap jordans free shipping
, and statistician/reporter Regina Nuzzo,
cheap jordans for sale
, the author of the piece on statistical errors that Bohannon links to in his write-up). Another way to highlight bogus science is to call it out by exposing quacks?and telling readers how to be skeptical.
Bohannon and his colleagues decided to create a wrong to prove that wrongs exist. They lied to the public to make their point. Granted,
cheap retro jordans
, it’s unlikely that anyone will be harmed by eating more dark chocolate. But not only does the caper do a disservice to people who are desperate for meaningful information about health and nutrition, it also undermines all of science and all of journalism. There’s real wrongdoing in both science?and journalism (most infamously, see Stephen Glass, Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke,
cheap jordans
, Jonah Lehrer, Brian Williams). But intentionally creating wrong to make a point is both bizarre and

http://users.atw.hu/pr...orum_topic&topic=9258

http://mylovesong.me/u...Jordan-Shoes-50-OFF-Sale/

http://worldofbitcoin....14238.msg397583#msg397583